THE IMPORTANCE OF EXERCISE IN THE PREVENTION OF BREAST CANCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methodology: This is a narrative review study. The search for articles was done on platforms such as SciELO, PubMed, and Scholar. The period of coverage used in the search was from 2011 to 2019, having as descriptors: breast cancer, prevention, and exercise. Objectives: To demonstrate the relevance of the recommendation of the practice of physical activities as an indispensable factor in the prevention of breast cancer in a manner proportional to the recommendation of exams. Results: Mammography is currently the most preferred form of prevention by physicians and the media. Since the 1980s, when introduced in European countries, the United States, and Canada, clinical trials indicated that mammography screening reduces mortality by 20 to 30% of this pathology. However, recent independent panels show that this rate is only 20% and that it is accompanied by ill effects, such as overdiagnosis. Mammography is undoubtedly an important tool in the prevention of breast cancer and the screening of physicians. However, since cancer arises from the interaction of endogenous and exogenous factors, with lifestyle being the most expressive factor, there should be a greater focus on physical activities, since they reduce the serum levels of some hormones, such as insulin. In turn, these hormones, at high levels, stimulate the growth of tumors. Conclusion: This review evidences the practice of physical activities as essential in the prevention of breast cancer. Without replacing mammography as a preventive method, the exercises are effective in reducing the development of tumors and stimulating physiological recovery without the ill effects of mammography. Therefore, about one-third of all cancers can be prevented with healthy eating and physical activity, which shows that for prevention, physical exercise is as effective as mammography, but much less publicized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".